Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

South Eastern Coal Fields Limited And ... vs Intech Safety Private Limited And Ors on 7 February, 2025

Author: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

Bench: T.S Sivagnanam, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

OD-7

                        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 ORIGINAL SIDE

                            APOT/6/2025
                    IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
             SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LIMITED AND ORS
                                 VS
               INTECH SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.


BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM
           -A N D-
HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
DATE : 7th February 2025.
                                                                             Appearance :
                                                              Mr. S. Roychowdhury, Adv.
                                                         Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.
                                                                               ...for U.O.I.
                                                               Mr. Amritam Mondal, Adv.
                                                               Mrs. Swati Agarwal, Adv.
                                                                 Ms.Shipra Naskar, Adv.
                                                                 ...for respondents 1 to 6
                                                                  Mr. Avishek Guha, Adv.
                                                                     Ms. Shilpa Das, Adv.
                                                         ...for respondent 4 (ICICI Bank)



       The Court   :-   This intra-Court appeal by the respondent in the writ

petition is filed against an interim order passed by the learned Single Bench in

WPO 594 of 2024. As could be seen from the first order dated 9.7.2024 passed

by the learned Single Bench the appellant herein, was the respondent in the

writ petition namely the tendering authority despite issuance of repeated

notices and communication did not appear before the Court nor the bank was

present and the Court took into consideration the facts and circumstances and

having been prima facie satisfied granted an order of stay for a limited period of

invocation of the bank guarantee. Subsequently the appellant has filed an
                                         2



application for vacating the interim order which was considered by the learned

Single Bench and the interim order and the said application were rejected.

      Aggrieved by the same the appellant is before us.

      We are clear in our mind about the legal position that Court should

refrain from granting an order of injunction of stay from invocation of a bank

guarantee. However, this rule which has developed through various judicial

decisions has certain exceptions. One such exception which we can point out is

when there is an allegation of fraud.

      According to the appellant, the writ petitioner had produced a certificate

of prior experience to enable them to participate in the tender invited by the

appellant. According to the appellant the said experience certificate is a

fraudulent document and in this regard they seek to rely upon certain

communication sent by Eastern Coalfields Limited. The learned Single Bench

took note of the facts and circumstances of the case which were placed for the

first time before the Court in the application for vacating the interim order and

opined that the allegation of producing false or fabricated or fraudulent

documents need to be examined. One more matter which needs to be taken

note of is that the writ petitioner was not informed that the reason for

returning the bank guarantee despite the writ petitioner being unsuccessful

bidder was on account of the allegation that the experience certificate is a

fraudulent document.

      Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that as per the terms

and conditions of the Bid Document if it is found by the tendering authority
                                            3



that the information furnished by the tenderer is false or any fraudulent

document has been produced they have got a right of forfeiture of the amount

furnished by the tenderer which is given in the format of a bank guarantee.

Thus several issues need to be adjudicated more particularly when there is an

allegation of fraud. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Bench

was justified in granting an interim order.

          One more issue which we need to point out is that the bank guarantee

which was given by the respondent/writ petitioner had lapsed on 12 July 2024.

Thus we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

          Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed and the appellant is directed

to file their affidavit in opposition within three weeks from date, reply, if any,

within a week thereafter after which, the appellant is granted liberty to mention

before the learned Single Bench for taking up of the matter at an early date.

          .

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) pkd/GH.